[Odometer] Improvement to DiscardChangesConfirmation usage

[jakubkalinski0]

Explanation of Change

Part 1

This PR narrows the scope of discard-navigation handling by reverting the overextended changes from commit fb26c40 and restoring screen-level ownership of guard conditions. In the shared discard hooks (useBeforeRemove, useDiscardChangesConfirmation web/native), isEnabled/isFocused was removed so listeners stay consistently attached and rely on getHasUnsavedChanges() for final blocking decisions making the caller responsible for controlling when the modal is active by utilizing the following patter:

For the odometer distance flow, unsaved-state detection was tightened in IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer. The modal is blocked when the screen is unfocused, when editing existing expenses, after trying to leave when editing-from-confirmation, and after skip-confirmation submit.

When removing isEnabled change was required for MFA authorize-transaction, the beforeRemove handler now exits early when navigation is already allowed, no transaction is loaded, or the deny outcome screen is shown, preventing unnecessary cancel/discard prompts while preserving the intended confirmation when a pending transaction is being reviewed.

In order to ensure users are not navigated to confirmation before the backup transaction is restored and prevent stitching of discarded images.

• useDiscardChangesConfirmation now supports async onConfirm and defers navigation until onConfirm settles
• restoreOriginalTransactionFromBackupWithImageCleanup now returns a Promise<void> so callers can await rollback completion
• In IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer, discard from confirmation now awaits rollback before navigating back

Part 2

At the same time, this PR also introduces Discard Changes functionality when odometer readings are edited from the confirmation step, leaving with real unsaved changes triggers the discard-changes modal. (it was agreed here - #86022 (comment))

Fixed Issues

$ #79502
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

We are testing the odometer expense creation flow which you start by doing the following:
Press FAB -> go to "Track distance" -> choose "Odometer" tab

1. Create a new odometer distance expense
2. Continue to the confirmation page, tap the Distance field to edit odometer values, and change either start or end reading or any of the images
3. Tap back by either pressing outside of RHP or on < back button
4. Verify that a discard-changes confirmation modal appears. Choose Cancel and verify that you stay on the odometer page with the unsaved value still visible
5. Repeat step 3 but when the discard-changes modal appears choose Discard and verify that you are brought back to the confirmation page and the changes were in fact discarded.
6. From the odometer edit-from-confirmation screen, modify at least one odometer reading
7. Tap Save to save and return to confirmation
8. Verify that navigation returns to confirmation without showing the discard-changes modal
9. Verify that the updated distance values remain applied (the original values are not restored)

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

output1.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

output2.mp4

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.16.Pro.Max.-.2026-04-10.at.17.44.04.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

output3.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

output.mp4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useBeforeRemove.tsx	33.33% <50.00%> (+8.33%)	⬆️
...ooks/useDiscardChangesConfirmation/index.native.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rAuthentication/AuthorizeTransactionPage/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useDiscardChangesConfirmation/index.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/TransactionEdit.ts	57.73% <10.00%> (-0.61%)	⬇️
...ou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 13f1f51dd2

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[JmillsExpensify]

No product review required.

[DylanDylann]

@codex review

[DylanDylann]

Could you revisit this comment?

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8581be41a0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[github-actions]

🚧 @Julesssss has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[jakubkalinski0]

Could you revisit #79576 (comment)?

@DylanDylann I asked @Expensify/design to discuss this topic on slack here

[DylanDylann]

The rest looks great

[jakubkalinski0]

@DylanDylann Do you mean to replace this whole condition with a single isSaved or only the isFocused?

!isFocused || !shouldEnableDiscardConfirmation || shouldBypassDiscardConfirmationRef.current || didSaveEditingConfirmationRef.current

[jakubkalinski0]

I think there is some potential to that idea - I will look into that in the morning

[DylanDylann]

@DylanDylann Do you mean to replace this whole condition with a single isSaved or only the isFocused?

I mean replace this whole condition with a single isSaved (and remove isFocused condition)

[jakubkalinski0]

I mean replace this whole condition with a single isSaved (and remove isFocused condition)

We might not be able to do that completely without covering all edge cases but I will do my best (those two shouldBypassDiscardConfirmationRef.current || didSaveEditingConfirmationRef.current should be replaceable by single isSaved)

[DylanDylann]

@jakubkalinski0 This is just a nit (a refactor for better readability). If there are any technical concerns, I’m fine keeping it as is.

[jakubkalinski0]

@jakubkalinski0 This is just a nit (a refactor for better readability). If there are any technical concerns, I’m fine keeping it as is.

I understand, but I think that it's a good idea and that we should be able to implement this approach partially and make it at least more readable

[jakubkalinski0]

@DylanDylann Hi! I looked into this and unfortunately we cannot really replace any part of this condition with isSaved in a sensible manner. This screen has sone extra concerns that Merchant/Description don't have:

!isFocused
Without this guard the discard modal would be active even when we go further in the creation flow and Odometer Tab screen is already underneath on stack (check out the video)

Screen.Recording.2026-04-21.at.13.48.55.mov

!shouldEnableDiscardConfirmation
This one we can actually remove and replace with isEditing since it's just

const shouldEnableDiscardConfirmation = !isEditing

But we cannot replace it with isSaved because the hook has no longer isEnabled param so there's no external way to disable it. This is the only mechanism to turn the modal off when isEditing=true

didSaveEditingConfirmationRef
Can't be fully replaced by isSaved. The ref is also used in a useEffect cleanup with an empty dependency array ([]). State would be stale there (always false from mount) causing the backup transaction to always restore instead of remove after saving. The ref is needed to escape that stale-closure problem

So in the end I think that keeping the original consistent two-ref approach is better than replacing one of those refs with isSaved (we could theoretically replace 2 of them with one isSaved but we would still have to keep didSaveEditingConfirmationRef for the useEffect so I think it's better to leave it as is)

[jakubkalinski0]

I will now check this one out

@jakubkalinski0 Let's see how we use useDiscardChangesConfirmation in IOURequestStepMerchant.

onCancel and onVisibilityChange props is added to solve some edge cases on mobile. (#64107 and #78590). I think it makes sense to apply it to IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer. Wdyt?

[jakubkalinski0]

@DylanDylann I've applied onCancel and onVisibilityChange to useDiscardChangesConfirmation in IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer, matching the pattern from IOURequestStepMerchant/IOURequestStepDescription. I also fixed the native hook which accepted onCancel in its type but never actually called it

[DylanDylann]

@codex review

[DylanDylann]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.16.03.43.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.15.56.06.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.15.58.41.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.15.56.06.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.15.54.46.mov

[DylanDylann]

LGTM

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[Julesssss]

Thanks for checking out that condition improvement, regardless!

[github-actions]

🚧 @Julesssss has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #87269.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-21ce298-d98911d-4ea0dc5968b99ed7c3a0c0df972913b7d9658832/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-21ce298-d98911d-0bdb55a2bded477b57a7de062bbcb4e064211c3b/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://87269.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.62-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS